A Pilot Assessment of Concurrent Validity and Comparative Reference Values for the Tongueometer Tongue Pressure Manometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Objective measures of lingual strength are used in both clinical practice and research to provide information regarding the ability of the tongue to contribute to safe and efficient swallowing. The Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI) is the most frequently used tongue pressure manometer and is considered to be the gold standard. The Tongueometer device was developed to circumvent IOPI shortcomings including bulb slippage, cost, and patient utility. As such, the aims of this pilot study were to examine the validity of the Tongueometer and to obtain comparative adult reference values. Method: Using the Tongueometer, participants completed three trials of anterior and posterior maximum isometric lingual pressure and regular effort saliva swallow tasks. Moreover, 41% of participants also completed all trials using the IOPI. Independent-samples t tests compared maximum means between the IOPI and Tongueometer. Concurrent validity was assessed using Lin's concordance correlations. Associations were evaluated using independent-samples t tests (sex) and Pearson correlation coefficient (age). Results: Seventy-six healthy participants (48 women, 28 men) with no history of swallowing difficulty were included in the study ( M age = 50 ± 21). Across all lingual pressure task measures, mean maximum Tongueometer measures strongly correlated with corresponding IOPI measures (anterior: concordance correlation coefficient [CCC] = 0.74, p < .000; posterior: CCC = 0.81, p < .000; swallow: CCC = 0.62, p < .000). Tongueometer and IOPI mean anterior maximum isometric lingual pressures were not statistically different, whereas posterior lingual pressures and pressures elicited during swallowing were statistically different ( p < .01). A significant negative correlation was found between age and maximum anterior tongue pressure ( r = −.43, p < .01). No significant association of sex on maximum tongue pressure was observed. Conclusion: Overall, this pilot research suggests that the Tongueometer is a valid tool for clinical use in measuring lingual strength and swallowing function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".